myprac

Not sure what my rebid would be with North's hand, but 2♣ seems out of the question with 22 HCP. GIB did this at every table (I was practicing with basic bot). [hv=sn=myprac&s=ST5HAKT432D7CJ653&wn=Robot&w=SJ32H75DKQT943CT8&nn=Robot&n=SAQ9HQJDA8CAKQ742&en=Robot&e=SK8764H986DJ652C9&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=1C(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1H(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20H%3B%206+%20total%20points)P2C(Opener%20rebids%20his%20C%20--%203-%20H%3B%203-%20S%3B%2011+%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20C%3B%2012-16%20total%20points)P2H(Responder%20rebid%20--%206+%20H%3B%206-10%20total%20poin)P4H(2-3%20H%3B%203-%20S%3B%2016+%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20C%3B%2016-%20total%20points)PPP&p=CTCAC9C3HQH6H2H7HJH8H3H5DAD6D7D4D8DJH4D3HAC8S9H9CJS2C2S4C5S3CKS7CQS8C6SJC4D5S5DKC7S6STDQSQSKHTD9HKDTSAD2]400|300|[/hv]

[hv=sn=human&s=SKT6HAK942DA3CQJ5&wn=Robot&w=SJ5HQ87D954CAKT97&nn=Robot&n=S743HJ653DKQ82C64&en=Robot&e=SAQ982HTDJT76C832&d=n&v=n&b=37&a=PP1H(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P2H(Simple%20raise%20--%203+%20H%3B%207-10%20total%20points)P4H(5+%20H%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2018-22%20total%20points)PPP&p=CKC4C2C5SJS3SAS6S2SKS5S4HAH8H3HTHKH7H5S8DAD4D2D7D3D5DKD6DQDTSTD9&c=10]400|300|[/hv] I was practicing with basic bots and when checking the traveler I couldn't figure out how anyone could make the contract. This is what I found. I've seen this among human players but this is the first time I've seen it work with robots. Is this an upgrade? You can now claim when playing robots? And they'll accept the claim even if the contract is unmakeable?

[hv=sn=myprac&s=SAQ854HA98D8CT762&wn=Robot&w=SKJT96HJ63DK75CAJ&nn=Robot&n=S7HKT74DAJT32CKQ5&en=Robot&e=S32HQ52DQ964C9843&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1S(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20S%3B%206+%20total%20points)P1N(2-5%20C%3B%204-5%20D%3B%202-4%20H%3B%202-3%20S%3B%2012-14%20HCP)PPD(Penalty%20double%3B%20requests%20S%20lead%20--%2013+%20HCP%3B%20rebiddable%20S%3B%2020-%20total%20points)PPP&p=C3C2CAC5CJCKC4C6S7S2SQSKD5DJDQD8S3SAS6D3H9H3HTHQH5HAH6H7H8HJHKH2H4C8S8SJCQC9CTSTD2D9S4DKS9DAD6S5D7DTD4C7]400|300|[/hv] It appears that GIB's code permits it to request a lead but not to fulfill that request.

Playing in the Main Bridge Club with unknown opponents ("take me to the first seat available"), I had an opponent who bid 7NT in circumstances where it could not possibly have been a serious bid. My partner doubled, and the 7NT bidder redoubled despite having no hope of making the contract. Then, on the opening lead he conceded all 13 tricks. Checking hand records, I saw that this was not the first time this person made a random bid of 7NT with no hope of making it and no reason for a sacrifice bid. It's the bridge equivalent of vandalism, ruining the hand not only for those at the table but also for others hoping to get an honest score from playing the same hand. Have others encountered similar behavior? Thoughts on this? My link

Your RHO's opening bid of 1NT was passed around and you must make an opening lead from this collection: ♠73 ♥J9642 ♦JT85 ♣85 Based on the bidding we can make some limited inferences about distribution and infer that partner has some strength. What's the smart way to think about leading from this hand? The default choice of ♥4 seems unlikely to succeed because your hand has no plausible entries to use this suit if it sets up. If partner has a good suit, it's most likely to be one of the black ones -- but leading from one of these doubletons could be just the help declarer needs to establish that suit. Does anyone like ♦J, top of a broken sequence? Or do you stick with ♥4 with the thought that this is the lead least likely to help declarer?

[hv=sn=obree&s=SJ98742HAQJDCK954&wn=Robot&w=S63H32DKJT8754CJ3&nn=Robot&n=SAK5HK654DA932C62&en=Robot&e=SQTHT987DQ6CAQT87&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=PP1D(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20D%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)P1S(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20tota)P1N(2-5%20C%3B%204-5%20D%3B%202-4%20H%3B%202-3%20S%3B%2012-14%20HCP)P2S(Retreat%20from%20notrump%20--%205+%20S%3B%206-11%20total)PPD(4+%20C%3B%205-%20D%3B%204+%20H%3B%205-%20S%3B%2010-16%20total%20points)PPP&p=H3H4H7HJS2S6SASTSKSQS9S3H5H9HAH2HQD4H6HTS4D5S5C7HKH8C4D7DAD6C5D8C2CTCKC3SJCJC6C8S8DJD2DQS7DKD3CAC9DTD9CQ]400|300|[/hv] GIB did this at two tables. I guess East's balancing double is okay as a two-suited takeout, and I can see the problem it poses for West, but it can't be right to pass here, can it?

With too many cards the only correct call is "Director!"

First time I've seen a two-suited bar bid. Fair to assume it would allow partner to correct back to responder's first suit (♥), rather than bar any further bidding?

In GIB's bidding system a takeout double is in effect something of a multi bid, normally showing a minimum point count and what might be called "takeout double distribution" (2- in the suit that is doubled, 3+ in all the others) but also being used with a strong hand that may not have that distribution. In the latter case the plan is to show strength (and alert partner to the possibility of a shape that isn't suitable for a normal takeout double) with a second bid. I assume that what happened here is that North saw it had strength for the second kind of takeout double but then found it didn't have a suit of good enough quality for a followup bid. One way to avoid that would be to adjust the criteria for the takeout double so that in cases where it means "strong hand, off shape" there has to be a rebiddable suit other than a major suit opened by opponents, so there's a place to go if partner bids your short suit. In this approach North would pass on the first round despite holding 19 total points. NS would end up defending 2♥ with opponents nonvul, which seems like a waste of North's hand but is certainly better than playing in 2♠. Another possibility would be to make a second bid from doubler mandatory, at least when the result could otherwise be a five-card fit. In this case North would have to bid 2NT, because retreating to a minor could also lead to a five-card fit. I assume this hand falls short of the HCP criterion for 2NT in this situation but it seems like the least unappealing choice given that South's free bid shows at least a few HCP to go along with North's 17, and North holds stoppers in the unbid suits and two in opponents' suit.

From practice with basic robots: [hv=sn=myprac&s=SQ853HD9854CKT986&wn=Robot&w=SAKT9HJT876DJ7CQJ&nn=Robot&n=S2HAK943DAQ32CA53&en=Robot&e=SJ764HQ52DKT6C742&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=PP1H(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points)D(Takeout%20double%20--%203-5%20C%3B%203-5%20D%3B%202-%20H%3B%203-4%20S%3B%2012+%20total%20points)2H(free%20raise%20--%203+%20H%3B%206-10%20total%20points)2S(Free%20bid%3B%20new%20suit%20--%204+%20S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-1)PPP&p=HJHKH2D4HAH5D5H8H3HQS3H7D8DJDQDKS7S8STS2H6H9SJSQD9D7DADTC3C2CKCJCTCQCAC7D2D6S5SKSAD3S6C6HTH4S4C8C4C9S9C5]400|300|[/hv]

That's interesting. I was under the impression that if anything basic robots were more likely to bid "by the book" because they don't look for creative alternatives. I guess in this case forcing doesn't mean forcing.

Hmm, should have included "Yellow Card." Also, I suppose some people say just "Standard American" when they refer to this system though most are aware that that term tends to be used loosely and want to specify SAYC when that is what they mean.

I'd like to clarify a small detail. The document says to subtract a short suit point if the short suit has honors. "Honors" here must mean point cards as it wouldn't make sense to do this with tens. I'd like to confirm that it applies to all point cards in short suits, not just unguarded face cards. I understand the rationale for treating a singleton ace as being worth less than six points but want to be sure that's what you intend.

The hand is from practice with the basic robot, which I suspect is getting pretty tired of me by now. I've never tried the downloaded version.

Just for fun, wondering how most people pronounce the oft-abbreviated name for this system.

The Grant/Rodwell book 2 Over 1 Game Force discusses at some length the potential advantages of GF with sample hands in various categories (finding the best game, exploring for slam) and compares alternatives (why GF works better than FSF in some situations, for example). I imagine some here would consider it too basic, but it's an excellent book and directly responds to the OP.

Someone who wanted to retain the quantitative bid while making this other use of 5NT available could say the "pick a slam" meaning applies only after Stayman. Would that explain the bidding sequence?

I open 1♣ in third seat and it's passed around to RHO who doubles. Among my choices are a value-showing redouble, raising my minimum point count to 15, which makes sense. I can rebid clubs or bid another suit, but the notrump choices seem strange to me (these are from rollover descriptions so I can't display them by posting the hand). I looked at 1NT and was surprised to see a HCP count of 20-21. I guess that could make sense given that partner wasn't able to muster a bid over 1♣ and in keeping with the "slow shows" philosophy. The description for a bid of 2NT in this situation was essentially null: it simply repeated the description for the opening bid of 1♣. Maybe that's because there's no sensible use for a 2NT bid in this situation (again, noting that partner didn't respond to 1♣) unless it's just to prevent opponents from finding a fit. Just checking to see if this is right.

And to make matters worse, the pass happens just when partner confirms a fit in spades. [hv=sn=myprac&s=SAJ5HKT73DJ95CK85&wn=Robot&w=S632HAQJDAQ4C9632&nn=Robot&n=SKT987H96DKT73CAJ&en=Robot&e=SQ4H8542D862CQT74&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=P1C(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%201)P1S(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20S%3B%206+%20total%20points)P1N(3-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%202-4%20H%3B%202-3%20S%3B%2012-14%20HCP)P2D!(New%20minor%20forcing%20--%204+%20S%3B%2012+%20total%20points)P2H(Other%20major%20--%203-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%204%20H%3B%202-3%20S%3B)P3D(4+%20D%3B%203-%20H%3B%204+%20S%3B%2012+%20total%20points)P3S(3-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%204%20H%3B%203%20S%3B%2012-13%20HCP%3B%20forci)PPP&p=D2D9DQDKS8SQSAS3S5S2STS4S9C7SJS6CKC3CJC4C5C2CACQD7D8DJDAC9SKCTC8H9H5HKHAC6H6H2H3HQS7H4HTDTD6D5D4D3H8H7HJ]400|300|[/hv]

Perhaps some use a different definition of trump coup than others. The line to make is as manudude describes, and at least by one definition constitutes a trump coup, permitting declarer to take advantage of his trump tenace over West's holding despite having no trumps to lead from dummy.

[hv=lin=pn|myprac,~~M4797n8m,~~M12795eb,~~M12799ag|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S247H289ADC249TJA%2CS58TQH46QD47JQC78%2CS39JKAHTD6KAC356Q%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%204%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7CForcing%20one%20notrump%20--%203-%20S%3B%206%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7CStrong%20hand%20--%204%2B%20C%3B%205%2B%20S%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2019-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3S%7Can%7C3%20S%3B%2011-12%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4S%7Can%7C4%2B%20C%3B%205%2B%20S%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2019-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4N%7Can%7CBlackwood%20%28S%29%20--%203%20S%3B%2012%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5C%7Can%7CZero%20or%20three%20key%20cards%20--%204%2B%20C%3B%205%2B%20S%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2019-22%20total%20points%3B%203-%20controls%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5D%7Can%7C%3F%20queen%20--%203%20S%3B%2012%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20point%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5S%7Can%7CNo%20queen%20-%20S%20trump%20--%204%2B%20C%3B%205%2B%20S%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2019-22%20total%20points%3B%203-%20controls%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6S%7Can%7CSignoff%20--%203%20S%3B%2012%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20point%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CS5%7C]400|300|[/hv] I really can't complain about the result here because it was my mistake to push into a spade slam instead of the much easier club slam. Yet the play at trick 9 here is remarkable. All set up for a trump coup, but then inexplicably plays low from dummy. I'm too big to cry, but it hurts too much to laugh.

If my partner opens 1♥ and RH overcalls 2♣, one of the bids available to me as responder is 2NT. Yet GIB's rollover description is blank for 2NT in this situation. I'm not smart enough to know what 2NT should mean here, but shouldn't it mean something? Otherwise we're wasting an opportunity to convey information about the responding hand.

Okay, I'm not complaining and I don't want to beat a dead horse, was just trying to be helpful in pointing out a gap that might deserve attention. I'm talking about 13 total points, not 13 HCP. That's too few for a 2/1 bid (except hearts) and too many for 1NT as the system defines it. I can live with the answer that we're going to leave these hands without a bid that's defined in the system, but it seems a little odd for a situation that comes up in the first round of bidding.

[hv=sn=myprac&s=SA3HK73DK64CQ9632&wn=Robot&w=SKQT9H42DQJCKJT84&nn=Robot&n=SJ652HAQ98DAT32C5&en=Robot&e=S874HJT65D9875CA7&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=P1C(Minor%20suit%20opening%20--%203+%20C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%201)P1H(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20H%3B%206+%20total%20points)P1N(3-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%202-3%20H%3B%202-3%20S%3B%2012-14%20HCP)P3N(4+%20H%3B%2017-%20HCP%3B%2013+%20total%20points)PPP&p=STS2S4SAH3H2HAH6H8HTHKH4H7C4HQH5H9HJS3DJS8C2SQS5DQD2D9DKD4C8DAD7C5C7C9CTCJS6CAC3S7D6SKSJS9D3D8C6CKDTD5CQ]400|300|[/hv] The bid technically complies with the rollover spec, but doesn't really make sense. Why add 2 points for a singleton when making this bid?

Another weird result while practicing with dumb bots. When I played this hand, I counted 22 HCP but decided against 2♣ because of the flat distribution, so I bid 2NT and partner bid 3NT, all fine and dandy. But I spotted the following result on the traveler: opener shows more strength than I did by bidding 2♣ followed by 2NT, and responder (with 9HCP) passes! My link